This letter appeared in the local paper.
------------------
We have all heard the arguments in favor of gun control. They invariably spring forth in the wake of a shooting with renewed calls to place additional restrictions on gun ownership. The usual argument is that banning guns will eliminate gun violence, or some other similar simplistic, naive assertion.
So when I read Mr. Robision's letter, I was pleasantly surprised that a cogent, reasonable argument based on a logically developed premise was advanced. This is so rare that I felt compelled to present it here as an example of a thoughtful person making an argument absent the usual character assassination, misrepresented statistics, and out of context quotes. I will still offer my usual analysis.
My commentary is in bold.
-------------
As with every American that follows the news, I was stunned by the horrific shootings in Newtown, Conn. on Dec. 14.
I also believe that as Americans we have reached the point where we must all share in the responsibility of making our schools, our movie theaters, and all of our public places safer for every citizen (This is true, but it is a long standing obligation of government to enforce the law.).
The right to own a gun is protected by our Constitution. Some Americans feel the need to have a gun for their own protection, and, especially in Montana, lots of people have a rifle for hunting purposes. The use of guns for these purposes cannot be questioned (But as we will see, the right to own some kinds of guns will be questioned later.).
An automatic rifle is neither a defensive weapon or a hunting rifle. It is an offensive weapon (Correct. Notice how he is developing his premise. However, for the record we need to note that automatic weapons are illegal. I think he's actually referring to the inaptly named "assault weapons.").
The only possible rationale for having one is to protect oneself from our own government (Perhaps not the only possible one, but most certainly his conclusion is largely correct. If we review the contemporaneous commentary offered by the founders as they hammered out the details of the Constitution, we would discover that the founders were indeed mindful of this very thing. Mr. Robison admirably continues to develop his argument based on his premise; in other words, he's engaging thought processes to move logically from one idea to another. Bravo, sir!).
This rationale implies an utter lack of faith in our ability as a people to continue making decisions as a people (From his original premise he now draws an inference. Again, bravo! I find myself disagreeing with his inference, however. As I mentioned the founders were cognizant of the need to oppose a tyrannical government. From the very beginning, the right to keep and bear arms was envisioned as a safeguard for liberty.
This is not a new thing. Therefore, I don't think Mr. Robison's conclusion can be justified on the basis he offers. I will accede to the idea, however, that there is a lack of faith in the decision making of our government, and is a great cause for concern. It may or may not be related to the gun issue, but not necessarily.)
It implies that democracy in America is dead (Mr. Robison draws another inference, based on the logical progression of his argument. Once again I find myself disagreeing. First, we don't have a democracy, we have a representative republic. That aside, he may be correct in a sense. The founders never trusted government, and did everything they could to keep power constitutionally diffused so that the people could live their lives unencumbered by an oppression.
On this basis I would suggest that our present government has indeed killed the foundational principle of American self-government: Limited, enumerated powers. The desire to possess guns did not do that. This is a response to what government has perpetrated.).
I do not accept this argument. (I presume he means that he does not accept the argument that we can no longer make decisions as a people, or that he does not accept that democracy is dead.)
I would argue instead that the higher the level of sophistication of my own weapon, the higher my personal level of fear that someone else will have a better, more devastating weapon than the one I have. Thus both the numbers and power of the munitions increase, and we all become less safe. (Ok, here's the first inference Mr. Robison makes that is unsupported. He turns the subject from the people vs. government to the people vs. the people. While societal violence is a concern, it is a separate issue from personal rights.
Further, Mr. Robison is suggesting an "arms race," not between nations but between individuals. But are guns the cause? No. Guns simply empower an already-existing criminal element, a criminal element that the government has gradually become impotent to address. Because government has largely failed to address criminality, criminals are now able to break the law with impunity, arming themselves without regard for the law. That's what criminals do.
There are a variety of societal and cultural elements that have allowed this to happen. I will not discuss that here. Suffice to say, criminals are always looking for ways to achieve their illicit ends. guns simply facilitate that.)
The only ones who win are the manufacturers of the guns (Implied here is that gun manufactures have an interest in exacerbating crime. We cannot know this, nor can we legitimately hold gun manufactures responsible for the way people use their products.).
How long will the majority of Americans be at the mercy of the fearful minority who insist on owning weapons designed for the battlefield (Wow, major change in direction here. Is Mr. Robison conflating gun ownership with the criminal element? Or is he claiming that owning guns is the product of irrational fear? I think he carefully misrepresents the issue in order to bolster his position.
I would say that the majority of Americans are actually at the mercy of 1) an increasingly tyrannical government, to which the constitutional remedy is gun ownership, and 2) a criminal element that can operate without regard for law enforcement.
Mr. Robison cannot know that the "minority" who own "battlefield" weapons are fearful. He certainly does not know their motivations. Nor does he know that these motivations must be negative.)?
Without exception, the shooters, from Columbine through Aurora and now Newtown, have been alienated young men (Well, no. What about the Fort Hood shooting ? The Cleveland School Massacre? Michael Mclendon Gabrielle Giffords, Patrick Sherrill? Suffice to say, mass murders are diverse lot. There is no basis to claim that they have only been alienated young men.).
Teaching young people better ways to cope with a rapidly changing world would do more to create safety and security than would increasing the number of guns (Why not do both. People legally owning firearms of every sort is of no danger to society. It is only when criminals, armed with not only guns but also the knowledge that there is likely to be little risk in committing crimes, are not caught, prosecuted, and thrown in prison for life if necessary, or executed. so that society can function properly.).
Tom Robison
No comments:
Post a Comment